5 ms·

People trying to steal to get drugs could. People high on drugs certainly could. A lot of Breaking and Entering, for example, is to obtain money to feed a drug

by rsj_hn 5y ago

People trying to steal to get drugs could. People high on drugs certainly could. A lot of Breaking and Entering, for example, is to obtain money to feed a drug habit. For the person doing the stealing, all they care about is the cost of the drug, so plans to regulate and tax meth, well, don't necessarily improve that situation.

dillondoyle 5y ago
I personally am for this totally legalization but also giving it out for free. or better yet just have a blanket small minimum universal income so no one can decry that we're paying for someone's addiction.
daveguy 5y ago
Yes. That requires another specific decision to commit a crime. Respiratory viral infection requires no additional decision on part of the viral vector. I agree there shouldn't be a blanket decriminalization of drug use because it does alter judgement/motivation and make a theft or even violent crime more likely.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  But the harm or benefit of a policy is not measured by how many specific decisions are performed, but rather by the overall effect of the policy on the community, no? So let's just talk about that rather than counting steps between A and B.
  - daveguy 5y ago
    The overall harm or benefit to the community is certainly related to how many and likely those bad decisions are that result in a specific harm/benefit.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      If true, then you should be able to make that case directly, no?
    - chucksta 5y ago
      Something like this? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths
      - daveguy 5y ago
        Well yeah. I'm all for locking up drunk drivers, offering rehab and then permanently revoking their drivers licenses if they do it again. That goes to the second decision to adversely affect others.
- howlin 5y ago
  Drugs destroy your ability to make good decisions. They are essentially hot wiring the brain's reward circuits which directly feed back into the brain's decision making processes. Most obviously, it's almost never the case that addicts consciously choose to become addicted.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    Does anyone 100% consciously choose anything? If you make a decision after drinking a strong cup of coffee, how much of that decision came from the caffeine, and how much came from your “consciousness”? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you—addiction is a disease of forces and circumstances, for sure—but the level of “free will” present in any choice (or sequence of choices) is a certainly not amenable to a binary classification.
    - howlin 5y ago
      Yes, the degree "free will"/willpower factors into a decision is much more of a spectrum than a binary. I'm just pointing out that drug addiction shifts your decisions away from the free will end of the spectrum.
      - LocalH 5y ago
        "Drug addiction" is not a singular problem with a singular solution. Every drug has unique effects, even between different people (two people take the same drug and don't have the same result). It does not serve public health to shoehorn everything into a square hole.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Pretty sure that Erdos said that Dexedrine/variants of amphetamine made him want to do math. Is wanting to do math a not good decision? Potentially, I guess.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      If you are Erdos, it is a good decision.
kragen 5y ago
But we aren't talking about plans to regulate meth; it's already very heavily regulated. We're talking about plans to partly deregulate meth, which we can expect to significantly reduce the cost of the drug, from the US$50 or more per gram described in this article down to US$1 per gram or less like other synthetic drugs with similarly simple synthesis routes. The US$50 a gram isn't the cost of operating the reactors or measuring the purity of the result; it's the cost of hiring an army of foot soldiers to keep drug addicts or the police from stealing the stuff, because you can't trust the police, because it's illegal. Yeah, people high on meth do crimes. But at least if the stuff is legal they won't do crimes to buy meth.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  So the way it worked out with marijuana is the legal stuff is a lot more expensive than the street stuff. Maybe it would be different with meth, but I'm not sure why. https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-california-marijuana https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-cali... Basically the whole legal drug movement is targeted at non-addicts to let them pay a premium for a sanitary, legal, controlled experience. The political justifications for the movement are all about harm reduction. But the reality is that if you are an apothecary in SF, you don't really want junkies hanging out in your lobby, for the same reason that communities don't want junkies in their streets. Mental problems, theft, possible violence, behavioral issues -- it would chase away paying customers, and impose security and liability costs on them. Those unwilling to pay for that more civilized experience go to the street. One important thing to remember is that legalization did not destroy the illegal market. They are different markets, although there is certainly overlap. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-legalization.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    In Canada at least in two provinces I've been to recently the price of mj has approximately neared par with the black market, more or less. You can still find some thats more expensive but you can also find some that isn't. The catch is that you have to buy an oz at a time to get that price - if you buy smaller amounts you will probably pay more than the black market.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

dillondoyle 5y ago

I personally am for this totally legalization but also giving it out for free. or better yet just have a blanket small minimum universal income so no one can decry that we're paying for someone's addiction.

daveguy 5y ago

Yes. That requires another specific decision to commit a crime. Respiratory viral infection requires no additional decision on part of the viral vector. I agree there shouldn't be a blanket decriminalization of drug use because it does alter judgement/motivation and make a theft or even violent crime more likely.

rsj_hn 5y ago
But the harm or benefit of a policy is not measured by how many specific decisions are performed, but rather by the overall effect of the policy on the community, no? So let's just talk about that rather than counting steps between A and B.
- daveguy 5y ago
  The overall harm or benefit to the community is certainly related to how many and likely those bad decisions are that result in a specific harm/benefit.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    If true, then you should be able to make that case directly, no?
  - chucksta 5y ago
    Something like this? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths
    - daveguy 5y ago
      Well yeah. I'm all for locking up drunk drivers, offering rehab and then permanently revoking their drivers licenses if they do it again. That goes to the second decision to adversely affect others.
howlin 5y ago
Drugs destroy your ability to make good decisions. They are essentially hot wiring the brain's reward circuits which directly feed back into the brain's decision making processes. Most obviously, it's almost never the case that addicts consciously choose to become addicted.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  Does anyone 100% consciously choose anything? If you make a decision after drinking a strong cup of coffee, how much of that decision came from the caffeine, and how much came from your “consciousness”? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you—addiction is a disease of forces and circumstances, for sure—but the level of “free will” present in any choice (or sequence of choices) is a certainly not amenable to a binary classification.
  - howlin 5y ago
    Yes, the degree "free will"/willpower factors into a decision is much more of a spectrum than a binary. I'm just pointing out that drug addiction shifts your decisions away from the free will end of the spectrum.
    - LocalH 5y ago
      "Drug addiction" is not a singular problem with a singular solution. Every drug has unique effects, even between different people (two people take the same drug and don't have the same result). It does not serve public health to shoehorn everything into a square hole.
- s5300 5y ago
  Pretty sure that Erdos said that Dexedrine/variants of amphetamine made him want to do math. Is wanting to do math a not good decision? Potentially, I guess.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    If you are Erdos, it is a good decision.

kragen 5y ago

But we aren't talking about plans to regulate meth; it's already very heavily regulated. We're talking about plans to partly deregulate meth, which we can expect to significantly reduce the cost of the drug, from the US$50 or more per gram described in this article down to US$1 per gram or less like other synthetic drugs with similarly simple synthesis routes. The US$50 a gram isn't the cost of operating the reactors or measuring the purity of the result; it's the cost of hiring an army of foot soldiers to keep drug addicts or the police from stealing the stuff, because you can't trust the police, because it's illegal. Yeah, people high on meth do crimes. But at least if the stuff is legal they won't do crimes to buy meth.

rsj_hn 5y ago
So the way it worked out with marijuana is the legal stuff is a lot more expensive than the street stuff. Maybe it would be different with meth, but I'm not sure why. https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-california-marijuana https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-cali... Basically the whole legal drug movement is targeted at non-addicts to let them pay a premium for a sanitary, legal, controlled experience. The political justifications for the movement are all about harm reduction. But the reality is that if you are an apothecary in SF, you don't really want junkies hanging out in your lobby, for the same reason that communities don't want junkies in their streets. Mental problems, theft, possible violence, behavioral issues -- it would chase away paying customers, and impose security and liability costs on them. Those unwilling to pay for that more civilized experience go to the street. One important thing to remember is that legalization did not destroy the illegal market. They are different markets, although there is certainly overlap. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-legalization.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...
- LegitShady 5y ago
  In Canada at least in two provinces I've been to recently the price of mj has approximately neared par with the black market, more or less. You can still find some thats more expensive but you can also find some that isn't. The catch is that you have to buy an oz at a time to get that price - if you buy smaller amounts you will probably pay more than the black market.